Sri Nayakara Erappa vs Sri Nayakara Erappa
2022 Latest Caselaw 12643 Kant

                             1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

                          BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

      REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.58 OF 2009 (DEC)

BETWEEN:

1.      SRI. NAYAKARA ERAPPA
        S/O LATE ERAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY
        GANGAMMA, W/O TATAIAH
        AGE: 28 YEARS,
        R/O: DHARMASAGARA VILLAGE,
        HOSPET TALUK, DIST: BELLARI.

        SINCE DECEASED THE APPELLANT NO.2 IS
        TREATED AS LR OF APPELLANT NO.1

2.      SRI. JOGADA THIMMA REDDY
        S/O LATE SANNA AMBANNA,
        AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
        R/AT: DHARMASAGARA VILLAGE,
        HOSPET TALUK, DIST: BALLARI.
                                               ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI.SHRIHARSH A.NEELOPANT., ADVOCATE [ABSENT])

AND:

1.      SRI NAYAKARA ERAPPA
        S/O LATE ERAPPA
        SINCE DECEASED BY GANGAMMA,
        W/O TATAIAH,
        AGE: 28 YEARS,
        R/O: DHARMASAGARA VILLAGE,
        HOSPET TALUK,
        DIST: BALLARI.
                              2




1(a)   HULIGEMMA D/O. ERAPPA
       W/O HONNURAPPA HUCHHAGANNAVAR
       AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
       R/O: KAKUBOL POST,
       TQ: HOSAPETE, DIST: BALLARI.

1(b)   ERAMMA D/O. ERAPPA
       W/O. ERANNA S/O. SOMMANNA
       AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
       R/O: KAKUBOL POST,
       TQ: HOSAPETE, DIST: BALLARI.

2.     SRI. NAYAKARAA HULUGAPPA
       S/O LATE ERAPPA,
       AGE: MAJOR,
       R/O: DHARMASAGARA VILLAGE
       HOSPET TALUK, DIST: BALLARI.

2.(a) RUDRAMMA
      W/O DURGAIAHA (BADANAHATTI)
      D/O HULUGAPPA
      AGED ABOUT: 35 YEARS,
      OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK,
      R/O: DHARMASAGARA VILLAGE
      HOSPET TALUK, DIST: BALLARI.

2(b)   GANGAMMA W/O TATAIAHA
       D/O HULUGAPPA
       AGE: 35 YEARS,
       OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
       R/O: DHARMASAGARA VILLAGE,
       TALUK: HOSPET, DIST: BALLARI.
                                         ... RESPONDENTS

(BY MS.AMRUTA SURESH., ADVOCATE FOR
     SRI.K.RAGHAVENDRA., ADVOCATE)

     THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO PASS A JUDGMENT AND DECREE BY
SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN R.A.
NO. 79/2001 DATED 23.03.2004, ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CIVIL
JUDGE (SR.DN) HOSAPETE, CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE PASSED IN O.S.NO. 152/1995 DATED 21.05.20001 ON
                               3




THE FILE OF COURT OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND
JMFC HOSAPETE.

     THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                         ORDER

Though matter called twice, there is no

representation on behalf of appellants.

Ms.Amrutha Suresh., learned counsel on behalf of

Sri.K.Raghavendra Rao., for respondents has appeared

through video conferencing.

The appeal is listed today for final hearing.

As could be seen from the appeal papers, the

appeal is filed in the year 2009. Now we are in the month

of October 2022. The appeal is pending before this Court

for thirteen years.

As already noted above, though matter called twice,

there is no representation on behalf of appellants. Hence,

the Regular Second Appeal is dismissed for non-

prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE TKN